State v. Matute

764 A.2d 214, 61 Conn. App. 410, 2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 24
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJanuary 16, 2001
DocketAC 20020
StatusPublished

This text of 764 A.2d 214 (State v. Matute) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Matute, 764 A.2d 214, 61 Conn. App. 410, 2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 24 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the state following the granting by the trial court of the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction of possession of cocaine in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) and to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea entered pursuant to the Alford doctrine.1 The state claims that the court improperly vacated the judgment and allowed the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that the original trial court had not advised the defendant of the deportation consequences of the guilty plea as required by General Statutes § 54-lj.2 The trial court, in vacating on August 6, 1999, the judgment that was based on the guilty plea entered by the defendant on August 19, 1993, determined that Public Acts 1997, No. [412]*41297-256, § 6, which amended General Statutes § 54-lj (c) and instituted a three year statute of limitations on the filing of motions to vacate, did not apply retroactively to the defendant. Since the trial court’s ruling, the Supreme Court resolved the issue of retroactivity in State v. Parra, 251 Conn. 617, 741 A.2d 902 (1999). In Parra, the Supreme Court held that the three year statute of limitations applied not only to defendants who pleaded guilty after the effective date of the amendment, but also retroactively to all defendants who claimed that they were not canvassed on the deportation consequences of their plea in accordance with § 54-lj. See id., 620.

The decision of the trial court allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to deny the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

North Carolina v. Alford
400 U.S. 25 (Supreme Court, 1970)
State v. Parra
741 A.2d 902 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
764 A.2d 214, 61 Conn. App. 410, 2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-matute-connappct-2001.